Comment on $6.2B in profit wasn't enough: Nvidia hikes GeForce Now prices for Canada and Europe
sirico@feddit.uk 11 months agoI can still boot up games I’ve owned since the age of 5 or games on steam that lost their licensing like Prey (2006) or some Lego games, come back to me next month when you can’t play Persona 5 Royal as it’s getting pulled due to licensing. Time and time again, subscription models are great value until a point where the market share is big enough and the user base is invested enough that the price gets hiked. Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t make me delusional, and frankly that was a pretty rude comment.
LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I, and the vast majority of the having community will play a game once and never pick it up again. Most don’t even finish.
For the one of two games I might actually want to play again, I’m happy to toss an additional $10 at the 10 year discounted rate.
I’m still $55 ahead of you purchasing on release.
Same with gamefly. $15 a month and I’ve saved thousands and thousands of dollars renting for 2 weeks and sending it back.
ripcord@kbin.social 11 months ago
I'm very skeptical that you're describing the majority, let alone vast.
aniki@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Tenniswaffles@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
That’s a fair assesment. But what’s the ratio games that you actually go back to compared to the amount of games you own in total? Unless you only play very few games, the amount of games a person owns vastly outnumbers the games they actually go back and play multiple times. Just looking at my steam library, I own hundreds of games I’ve completed once and have never touched again along with about 2 dozen I actually go back and play occasionally.
LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world 11 months ago
deathisawhale.com/…/how-many-players-actually-fin…
www.sciencedirect.com/…/S1875952118300181
ripcord@kbin.social 11 months ago
I don't think the "actually finish games" was the unlikely thing about what he said
Aceticon@lemmy.world 11 months ago
That “only worth playing once” thing only applies to story heavy, fixed map, pure single-player games, which are mainly a sub-set of AAA games, typically on consoles.
Further, even amongst those some are so good that they’re fun again to play after some time (though it usually takes a couple of years to forget enough of the details for it to be fun again). For example, Fallout 3.
Methinks you’re a very young gamer, who is mainly fad driven hence buys the same AAA games as his friends and doesn’t buy indie games (which is where you’ll find the most replayable games of all, as indies often have generated maps since they can’t afford to spend millions of dollars on people doing level design) so yeah, all you’ve ever seen is games that are only fun once or for a very limited time period.
That would also explain why you confuse your own behaviour with “the vast majority of the gaming community”.
I would be seriously surprised if you were an older gamer as they’re more likely to buy games for their fun factor - not fashionability amongst peers or last gen graphics - hence sooner or later end up playing some indie game or other with generated maps, plus are much more likely to have picked up again some game they played and finished years ago and still fondly remember, just to discover it’s actually fun again.
newDayRocks@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Let’s not gatekeep “real gamers”.
You should also read his comment again. He is not saying that a game is only worth playing once because the story or game is linear. Although no sources are cited, he is probably right that a fair percentage of people pick up a game and drop it soon after because it wasn’t what they thought it would be or any number of other reasons.
Even if you are an indie gamer, the sheer number of indie games that come out each year is overwhelming, and again a lot are not super polished so you can probably also see people picking it up, playing it, not being impressed and then dropping the game.
So why spend $10 a pop per game when you can pay for one month and enjoy many of them?
There is no need to be materialistic. Yes there are games you will want to go back to in a few years or take your time with, but there are many many games that you may never touch again. If you think this is a minority opinion, check out some Steam stats. I think they support OPs argument.
There are also reasons subscription based models can and do suck, there is a reason they are popular.
Aceticon@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yeah, ok.
That is indeed a different view of that post which makes sense.
LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world 11 months ago
What a fun story.
My NES came with Mario 3, I raided before plains of power made EQ easy, and I spent hours chopping wood by hand in ultima because I refused to get a paperweight to hold down the hot key.
They are certainly games out there that have a longer shelf life. It’s not all of them nor should it be and it’s not how most people play games unless heavily multiplayer focused.
Aceticon@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Well, somebody else provided a different take on what you meant (that people try and ditch lots of shit games, only settling down with some good ones) that makes sense.
Personally that’s not how I do it (I would rather not waste time and money trying tons of shit gams), but that’s me and I’m not going to claim that’s how most people go about consuming games.